The Globalist Agenda of the UN

Map day today. I must admit I’m a bit of a map and chart geek; ever since I learnt how to read – I mean really read – the 1″ OS edition as a child, they’ve fascinated me. My father’s stint as a Staff Instructor, trying to teach young army officers how to map read (a frustrating period of his military career) left me with three War Office manuals the contents of which I absorbed like blotting paper, so even now I can scan a mass of contour lines and identify dead ground, fields of fire, arty FO points and so on. Not much use on a Sunday ramble in the country, but better fun than twiddling with a bloody mobile phone when on a walk. Yes, I mean you. You know who you are.

Right. Below are a pair of Worldmapper cartograms for 2018 population and GDP – each country’s area on the map is relative to the magnitude of these factors.

Each country, no matter how geographically large or small, no matter how big its population, no matter how great or insignificant its wealth, has one vote in the UN General Assembly, an equal chance of a rotating seat on the Security Council and a fair go at all the lucrative posts. Indeed, since its inception (the original United Nations were the allies who defeated German fascism and Japanese militarism, the permanent SC members) its Secretary-Generals have all been drawn from the smaller nations; Norway, Sweden, Burma, Austria, Peru, Egypt, Ghana, South Korea and Portugal.

Given that there are far more small, poor nations than large, rich nations how would you imagine an organisation so constituted would evolve, over time, its mission, objectives and strategy? Yep. It’s not some tinfoil conspiracy theory or lizard takeover plot – the natural progression for the UN since 1947 has been towards making smaller poorer countries richer and more powerful. Unfortunately, the consequences over the past twenty years have been the economic decimation of the working and middle classes in the higher-GDP lower-population developed world.

Two factors are at play – often confused but actually quite separate. Globalization and Globalism. Globalization is a change that has come about through advances in communication technology, trade, transport, education, and aid and outreach programmes that have spread medicine, infrastructure, agrarian science, and post-Enlightenment culture across the globe.  Globalism is a movement to establish government, legal systems, economic systems and corporate entities without hindrance of national borders across the globe. It is therefore Globalism that drives the agenda of the UN – in concert with other supranational bodies working to the same ends; the EU, World Bank, IMF and WTO.

Lost in the noise of Brexit, the UN endorsed the Global Migration Compact in December 2018. Several nations refused to sign up – Austria, Australia, Bulgaria, Chile, Czech Republic, Dominica, Estonia, Hungary, Italy, Israel, Latvia, Poland, Slovakia, Switzerland and the USA. Our own government agreed it – on the basis that it is ‘non-binding’ under international law. However, as New Zealand’s law officers have warned, non-binding does not mean legally irrelevant – and “courts may be willing…to refer to the Compact and to take the Compact into account as an aid in interpreting immigration legislation”. This applies also to both UK courts and the ECHR and ECJ.

The migration compact is an unashamedly Globalist policy instrument – to the disadvantage of the peoples of the developed nations, but to the benefit of both Globalist corporations and organisations. In addition, it will shape future EU legislation, which will be framed so as not to contradict or act against the intentions of the Compact.

I do apologise for the uncharacteristic ‘Globalism 101′ tone of this post – this is for the benefit of our new readers, who have only the most basic notion of how political policy evolves into action. In the past few weeks I’ve realised how my old dad felt in trying patiently but unsuccessfully to teach somewhat dim young subalterns the difference between a spur and a gully.